Newsgroup sci.physics 214066

Directory

Kevin (Kevnpaty@accessnv.com) wrote:
: If I get 586 Wh/day/sq. ft., does that mean that using a panel that is
: 1x4 ft would give me about 2200 wh/day? or about 2.2 KWH per day? That
: means I could power my house with 12 panels, and some conservation,
: right?
I believe that is correct, assuming that your panels are 100% efficient,
rather than the 10% or so you are likely to actually achieve. Try adding
a factor of _10_ into this estimate and you're in the ballpark. Which
really isn't that bad (you roof probably has enough area) until you
consider the several 10's of kilobucks needed for the install.
Stan Bischof
stanb@sr.hp.com

On Fri, 03 Jan 1997 21:20:05 -0500, Mike Lepore
 wrote:
>I think the S. cat problem is flawed because the cat is the
>observer.  If the cat is in the box, there is an observer 
>in the box.  You don't need to consider the person who can't
>peek inside and see the cat.  (In fact, an observer doesn't have 
>to be a living thing.  Any sort of process which has an
>effect due to a cause is sufficient.)   
>
>
 Would that include the radiation particle that might or might not
have initiated the whole experiment?
Boris Mohar

Bruce Ratcliffe  wrote:
>I am a high school science teacher looking for back issues of DISCOVER 
>magazine (and that ilk) for use in a senior research class here in 
>Fresno.  If you have some you'd be willing to part with, please give me a
>ring (well, you know what I mean...)
>Bruce Ratcliffe, Edison High School (Home of the Tigers)
I would be a little leery of DISCOVER since they print hoaxes without
retractions (i.e. a small burrowing creature in Antarctica with a very hot
head that burrows at high speed under the snow to surprise and eat
penguins, etc.).  However, I have several boxes of Scientific American
that I could be persuaded to part with.
Mark Folsom, P.E.
Consulting Mechanical Engineer

In article <32CDD639.2C86@mindspring.com> you wrote:
[...]
> No.  The definition says that a meter is 1/299792458 of the distance
> that light travels in a second in a vacuum.  So, unless you change
> *this* definition, changes to the definition of a second won't affect
> it either.  
I did not mean that the definition of "meter" would change, 
I meant that the _length_ of 1 meter would change (if we do 
not change the above definition of "meter"). If you redefine 
"second" making it, say, slightly longer, the meter would also 
become proportionally longer.
Miguel A. Lerma

Proto  wrote
>tricer@news.HiWAAY.net (Richard Trice) wrote:
>>: Yeah, it would! You think all frogs are the same species? All fish?
>>: All deer? Oh God, my bloodpressure!
>>: Slim
>
>>Of course they are all the same species... otherwise how would Noah have
>>gotten all of them on the ark!
>Please say you're joking about the ark part.
Bullshit, man!!  If it says it in the bible, that's proof!!
Mark Folsom
"Gospel truth" is an oxymoron.

Robert L. Reed wrote:
> 
> Just last year, physicists have found photons traveling at FTL. This is in
> direct violation of Special Relativity. A message was sent at 4.7c. So if
> we accelerate photons, will will be able to see faster than light.
One of the essential properties of photons is that they travel at 
velocity c in a vacuum. Please be more specific about the circumstances 
of this alleged breach.
**** Please reply to the newsgroup - my email address is not valid.
**** I consistently approach the administrators of systems from which I
**** receive junk mail.

crjclark  wrote in article
<32CD4302.3B86@Prodigy.Net>...
Craig,
With your permission, I would like to make some comments sprinkled with a
few questions.
>
> If you take inverse square law first, a semi tone likes to go to another
semi
> tone.  A 13th interval in tonal music melody is rare.  Diatonic and
chromatic
> melody are the norm.  Hindemith likes diatonic melody.  The position of
tones
> in space makes it easier for them to combine when they are nearer to each
other.
> Just like Newton's inverse square law.  
In a sense, that is true.  However, you would expect the tones to not have
a tendency to resolve in a particular direction -- given pure "musical
gravity".  For example, C B will usually resolve to c, not to Bb.  If it
was only the pull of "musical gravity", then it would resolve to Bb as much
as it would to c.  Also, given C D E F G the greatest tendency of
resolution is C, not Ab.  Now, I will agree that in an atonal composition
that is not the case because of the established conventions.  However,
IMHO, it is the established conventions that determine the "musical
gravity", not the inverse square law.
>Dissipation of sound is very much  like entropy.  If the sound dissipates,
it undergoes Lorentz >transformation.   There is a move towards chaos and
eventually musical vacuum.  That is, no
> music left in the air.
Very true.  However, while all music is sound not all sound is music.
> Kandinsky thought that the colors in his paintings were conscious.  I
don't 
> think he had a plan all the time for his painting.  He was often
surprised
> at his own shapes and forms on the canvas.  They kind of generated
themselves.
> He just held the paintbrush.  I think composing can be the same.  But it
is 
> non-linear.  It doesn't always happen the same way.  One day you can hear
a
> melody in your head and simply write it down. The next day you have a
trial
> and error session.  The next day you hear the note but not the chord. 
The
> virtual image and the reality exist together. 
Yep, you hit the experience right on the nose (at least for me).  I do not
agree with your explanation of the experience, but I still think it is
pretty neat.  
> 
> Ultimately, thoughts themselves can be memory, perception or
combinations.
> William Blake didn't buy the notion that Imagination was merely
subconcious
> recombinations.  His visions were projected in living 3-d color.  Now
where
> did these projections originate?  If you buy the dualist theories of
mind/brain,
> there is an aspect of mind that is not strictly limited to neuron
configurations
> of the individual cortex.  We all have radio antennas in our heads. 
Where the
> signals are coming from is anybody's guess.  
Now, is this how the harmony of the Universe is transmitted to the mind of
the composer?  Is it electro-magnetic in nature?  If it is, then everything
written after the turn of the century should be tainted with the EM fields
modern life has given us.  I would expect to see some evidence of that.  I
see none.
>AFter all, like Kant said, we have meager finite minds as humans and
ultimately we know nothing.
I agree with both of you and I especially agree with that about
myself.
> 
> Surely the non-musical thought is the whole reason for the existense of
music.
Not for me, the whole reason for music is enjoyment.  Now, if this is not
the case then what would be the non-musical thought?  Also, what is the
goal of the non-musical thought?  
>A conductor very well may lead a concert hall audience to Heaven in a very
real sense
Now, this is true ethos.  Music, IMHO, without context and convention, does
not have a morality nor influence (good or bad) on the listener.  It is the
conventions we have learned that give it the influence that it has on us. 
In fact, IMHO, it is the listener that is the most important component of
the musical communication process, not the performer or composer.  Without
an understanding and appreciation of the conventions, no musical
presentation can have any influence on an audience.  Now, if ethos existed,
that would not be the case.  The ethos of the music would overpower the
audience regardless of their education or preferences. 
>, or he may influence the audience to relax and unwind and forget their
worries.  The power
> of music is profound.  It definitely influences actions.
I completely agree.  However, as I stated above, it is the conventions not
intrinsic qualities that give it that power.
> Consonance and dissonance are always evolving.  To my ear, Stravinsky and
> Shostakovich are consonant most of the time.  This wasn't always the
case.
> 3rds and 6ths are always going to sound stronger than the other intervals
> as far as harmony goes.  I guess the power of music to communicate is in
the
> ear of the beholder.    
Now, maybe I missed a step here.  How do you resolve the apparent conflict
between the "ear of the beholder" and the resonance of the universe?  In
other words, IMHO, the "ear of the beholder" implies that music exists
purely in a socio-historical-cultural kind of environment, not a universal
context that exists apart from the human participants.  
Thanks again for sharing your very interesting thoughts.
-- 
Jonah Barabas
http://www.tclock.com/jbarab.htm

Fred McGalliard  wrote:
>FolsomMan wrote:
>> ...
>>Mark Folsom
> 
>> "Gospel truth" is an oxymoron.
>Mark and friends. The Gospel truth contains some testable truths and 
>much that cannot be tested. Including the uncomfortable truth that just 
>yelling about what we think the Gospel says, 1) never wins us any 
>friends, 2) puts us on the same side as the demons, if we could but see 
Where are these demons?  Are they the ones who burned the Christians of
Jewish heritage in Spain?  Or maybe those who tortured and burned 800,000
innocent women as witches?  Possibly those who threatened Galileo with
torture because he said that Earth goes around the sun?  Maybe them that
frighten little children with stories of burning in the fires of hell if
they think bad thoughts?  Maybe you can cite some other examples.
>it. The truth defends itself and a wise man will accept it when it's 
>presented to him. I am afraid that the creationests have made a case for 
>the demons by carelesly interpreting scripture and then doing really bad 
>science. 
They are intentionally ignorant and willfully careless.  Most of them do
no science at all.
>But I do not want you all to get the impression that all good 
>scientests must forswear the gospel, or that the gospel does somehow 
>actually tell a demonstrable lie. 
Accepting the contradictions and absurdities in scripture as truth must do
some significant warping of the logic of any decent mind.
>It was intended to instruct the 
>ignorant as well as the educated, so some of what it says requires more 
>careful thought and interpretation for us over educated folk.
If you mean to say that there are things in the gospels worth considering,
I certainly can't argue with that.
However:
The Gospels tell demonstrable lies:
Matthew 1:12
  ...Achim the father of Eliud and Eliud the father of Eleazar, and
Eleazar the father of Matthan, and Matthan the father of Jacob, and Jacob
the father of Joseph the Husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born who is
called Christ.
Luke 3:23
  Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being
the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of
Joseph...
Judson tells me that the second of these refers to the lineage of Mary,
which it obviously does not.  I have looked at the same passages in three
different translations (KJV, NIV and RSV) and they all say the same thing.
 There are several other contradictions between the gospels and it is thus
unavoidable that some of them must not be telling the truth.
Mark Folsom
"Gospel truth" is an oxymoron.

In <5ak23m$6e0@sjx-ixn7.ix.netcom.com> odessey2@ix.netcom.com (Allen
Meisner) writes: 
>
>In <19970103215300.QAA26120@ladder01.news.aol.com> lbsys@aol.com
>writes: 
>>
>>Im Artikel <5aiu5m$idn@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>odessey2@ix.netcom.com
>>(Allen Meisner) schreibt:
>>
>>>Something must change when you
>>>increase the potential by moving the bodies farther apart. There
>>>therefore must be something that is constraining the body to move to
>a
>>>lower potential. IOW, something must decrease when the body moves to
>>>the lower potential, and this decrease constrains the body to
>move-or,
>>>counterintuitively, is something increasing? What is this something?
>>>Could someone enlighten me?
>>
>>Try entropy ....
>>
>>
>>
>>The most dangerous untruths are truths slightly deformed.
>>Lichtenberg, Sudelbuecher
>>__________________________________
>>Lorenz Borsche
>>
>>Per the FCA: this eMail adress is not to 
>>be added to any commercial mailing list.
>>Uncalled for eMail maybe treated as public.
>>
>
>    This is tantalizing and not much help. Could you give me more than
>two words? What I am particulary interested in, is what is physically 
>happening as the potential energy of the body is converted to
momentum.
>Mathematically, I guess you could solve for the potential energy of
the
>body in terms of the space curvature, using general relativity. Then
>could you solve for the momentum of the body in terms of the space
>curvature? Then relate the first equation to the second by the
>necessary math? Then see what is physically happening as the syatem
>evolves over time? Is this possible? Does the math say anything about
>what is physically ocurring, or provide an explanation for why the
body
>is constrained to move? Is this too simplified? Is the situation much
>more complicated than I am making it out to be? There are many factors
>to take into account. For instance as the bodies move closer the
>distance is decreasing, but the accleration is increasing. Therefore
>although the potential eneregy is decreasing the weight of the body is
>increasing due to the greater acceleration. Do the equations take all
>of these factors into account?
>
>Regards,
>Edward Meisner
    If the above ideas turn out to provide insight into the physical
mechanism behind accelerated motion, a physical explanation for inertia
might also be possible. The Lobachevsky geometry of the inertial field
has a non-zero slope for a body in inertial motion. This means that the
inertial field has a potential just like the gravitational field. The
difference between the gravitional potential and the inertial potential
would be that the potential of the gravitational field extends from
infinity to the body, whereas the potential of the inertial field
extends from the body to infinity. Also, the slope of the gravitational
field changes, whereas the slope of the inertial field is constant. The
conversion of the potential energy to velocity would therefore have
very different natures in the gravitational field and the inertial
field. I am not sure, but the action of the gravitational field might
be energy times time squared, Et^2, whereas the action of the inertial
field is energy times time, Et.
Edward Meisner

David Sepkoski  wrote:
>Just thought I'd point one little thing out:
>When people are saying "Christian," they obviously mean some wacked-out,
>American fundamentalist sect.  The Catholic church, for instance, which
>historically was the "adversary" of science, has recently come out with
>a) an apology to Galileo and b) a statement that the "theory" of
>evolution should probably be considered fact.  The Pope himself said
>this!  Just pointing out that Christianity isn't mutually exclusive of
>intelligence or education--and doesn't have to mean dogmatic
>indifference to the progression of knowledge.
When you tell me that a 2000 year old institution hasn't tortured any old
men in the last 200 years for disagreeing with dogma, that's a little
reassuring but not very.  It wasn't too long ago that the Catholic Church
was winking at the NAZI's and looking the other way (but of course, the
church killed a number of Jews itself back in the good old days).  And
they still have very queer ideas about population control (seeming to
prefer plagues and starvation to birth control).  However, they should be
congratulated for getting up to speed quicker on Darwin than on Galileo.
Mark Folsom
"Gospel truth" is an oxymoron.